With the imminent release of Windows Vista to consumers this month, Linus Torvalds, the father of Linux, has claimed Microsoft's latest desktop effort is over-hyped and not a revolutionary advancement. "I don't actually think that something like Vista will change how people work that much," Torvalds told Computerworld. "I think it, to some degree, has been over-hyped as being something completely new and I don't actually think it is."

Its allways been political for RMS, hence the term "Free Software". "Open Source" came later.
so its more the opposite effect, going more and more thowards bussines interests.
(im not saying its ALL bad though)

I agree he is a bit pedantic, but his message holds more water today than it ever did.

The "FREE" part mainly applies to developers and would-be developers. Free to modify the code. The catch is that you should offer the same freedoms to others, as was offered to you. That's the point of the GPL.

It does NOT necessarily mean free as in give away at no cost. Even though most distros are given away for free, companies like Xandros, RedHat, Novell, Linspire, etc charge money for their distros. (For support contracts to business clients, paid support for desktop users, or to pay for proprietary codecs like MP3, WMV, etc, etc).

Those companies clearly make money on GPL'ed solutions. (Which counters your claim suggesting that you can't make money).

And the GPL v3? Have you actually read the drafts? Or are you just basing things on hear-say?

The GPL v3 is mainly about preventing Tivo-lization. That is, delibrately using hardware (DRM) to prevent users of that device from modifying the Linux code as they wish.

GPL3 does NOT mean DRM-free content. Developers can add DRM the content they distribute. If you want DRM and don't agree with GPL, write your own code. Its your choice.

1. Universities do research and release code under BSD style license.
2. Many of these projects are very good and picked up by companies to commercialize them.
3. These companies (in turn software engineers in thse companies) makes money and make software engineering a lucrative discipline for students.
4. The companies donate some of the money back to universities.
5. Go to step 1.

This is the ecosystem promoted by BSD. GPL breaks that. If you ever read statistics, students are losing interest in computer science and once they see that it is not financial a good field to support their family, you will see even less people in this field.

That is why i like BSD and not Linux.

The all combined GPL based products have earned less money than even a handful of non-GPL products.

In a country like USA where a doctor charge 300$ for 30 minutes appointment, you need money to live a good life and GPL is not making software as an interesting field to make that kind of money.

Sorry buddy RMS is a communist whacko and i don't want to take an example from him in this very capitalist world.

It is very tempting to "take an example" from people, but I find that it is a tricky business. Just think for yourself and argue without invoking people like LT and RMS. If you are dead set against RMS's ideas, you should be prepared to argue using facts and logic.